Yes, people have indeed improved its living circumstances, especially people in the industrialized nations. And actually there are cases where mankind has improved its condition by wiping out certain species. Smallpox is the most famous. But, wisely, I think, people have kept a small amount of the virus around in the laboratory. Some people have debated whether or not that was wise but once you completely destroy the virus then you can no longer study it. Who knows? Maybe we could learn something beneficial from it. The extinction of a species is a loss to the scientific community that can never be recovered.
Do I have a responsibility to the scientific community? If there is no creator that has given us domain over the creatures of the earth then the Darwin rule that the strongest shall survive applies, does it not? ZLaw
Darwinistic natural selection is brutal. Just because Darwinism got us to where we are does not mean that people must apply Darwinism in designing our society. That's one of the reasons that understanding Darwinism is important. We really do now, more and more, have domain over the creatures of the earth - but that can be attributed in large part to science.Because we have a responsibility to ourselves, I think we do have a responsibility to the scientific community. Science has been and continues to be a very successful human venture. We could not feed as many people as we do without science. Modern medicine and machinery would not be possible without science. Science, more than just about anything else, has helped people to improve our living circumstances. If people stopped supporting the sciences then I think we could expect living circumstances to decline.
You talk like more people is a good thing, why?You also speak of designing society, is that like saying who should pick cotton and who should use the whip or just who's idea of living circumstances we should be made to fall in line with?My idea of good living circumstances is a society that does not put 44,000 people out of work to save a 2 inch fresh water fish so science can spend the next hundred years counting them.ZLaw
No, I don't think overpopulation is a good thing. But at the same time I shudder at the thought of plague and famine.Humans have designed their society for as long as there have been humans- we're social beings after all. In regard to you comment about the fish - you are right that we need to find a balance between preservation and having an economy. The questions are challenging. Does the Bible provide those answers?
Yes.
As to the good of your science.Those people put out of work are food producers who make life possible. Consider that your science has declared that DDT is bad for bald eagles so it was ban resulting in the death of millions of humans (most children). With the record that science has for killing people your worship of them escapes any logic that I can see.May I also remind you that man has used science as much for evil as he has used it for good. It was hard to kill 100000 people at one time with a rock.I am a believer that science is a gift of God but as we men do from day one, we have misused this gift for evil.ZLaw
I think that we are in agreement that the acquisition of knowledge is generally a good thing - but we also agree that knowledge can be misused. You have written that I worship science. That's not the case. You asked a question about why it might be justified to preserve something in nature at the cost of somebody's job. I think I answered the question but I was careful to write the words "may", "might" and "perhaps" in my answer. You see the question in these matters is often for me, "What will be most beneficial to humans?" You have provided a lot of Biblical verses that you claim, when it comes to issues of conservation and the economy, will provide the answers, and perhaps I should be impressed. But in order to help this conversation, is it possible for you reduce your list to a more manageable three or four verses that we could discuss so that you can demonstrate how those verses can be used to unambiguously determine how the balance can be struck between conservation and economic concerns when those issues come up. Maybe give an explanation with each verse how that exactitude is found.
Maybe we should define the word worship, to me it means something that one puts his faith in concerning survival and the future. Under my definition, which you may or may not accept, you worship the sciences.
I like your question, "What will be most beneficial to humans?" Can you explain why you would care what happens to other humans.
Does your mouse care what happens to a mouse two miles away from him?
Does a male grizzly care when he kills the cubs of a female grizzly so he can free her up for mating?
Why are you any deferent?
The Bible teaches us about gluttony, the need to work, the need to help each other, and the need to love each other. But even more important is something that I would not expect a nonbeliever to understand and that is the old saying that you can't take it with you. Read the verses I posted at your leisure and see if you can find the attitude that the Bible is teaching us that might affect the way we use the resources that God gave us, and the way we interact with each other in our social structure.